I've come to notice that there are certain traits that religious fanatic share, especially Christians.
Not being able to answer a question directly
Obnoxious quoting and misquoting the Bible instead of actually answering a question
Regression into namecalling when backed into a corner with logic
I agree. However, I think this can apply to anyone with any religion, or lack of it, to be honest. Yes, it applies alot to Christians, I agree. I've written a lot of articles concerning this topic because I claim to be a believer and yet I find so many who claim to be so, exhibiting these traits. I think many who are non-religious don't recognize it in themselves becuase they are so busy pointing it out in the religious. We're all human and get angry with each other
And I mean no disrespect to say this, but why begin a post to point out these things when it will only stir up anger and get everyone freshly riled up against these traits? If people have encountered these attitudes, they're already angry. Why begin something that will only stir up negative emotion towards each other when it probably won't change the fact anyway? I'm not trying to be a pain; I just think it would benefit us all to be more positive; not to ignore the problem, but to address it in a manner which will not cause more strife...
I agree with you, Ashton. I learned to stay away from those negative debates when someone wrote on one of my hubs claiming to "shoot everything I said down". After he posted a strange, rude, and irrelevant comment to my hub, I explained to him what I was saying and it was obvious that he didn't read it in the first place.
I think a lot of people get out of hand--religious or not--and tend to participate in nonsense arguments that are never resolved. We all need some positivity and acceptance otherwise we will spend all of our time arguing and no time learning. You made some great points, Ashton. Thanks for posting.
Believe it, or not; that pretty much sums up the behavior of the fanatics on both far ends of the religious spectrum.
The whole of humankind seem to possess those traits.
I'm having a hard time myself understanding why irreligious people always criticize religious people for their attempts to attain a basic moral standard. Is it so hard for you to understand the premise that people are fallible? I rather think that you enjoy seeing religious people who are unable to live up to the set of standards prescribed in their religious books (especially Christians).
"The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength." Saul Alinsky
For my fellow Christian 'fanatics'. (That term makes me feel like a Philadelphia Phillies fan instead of a Christian, but it's cool)
Matthew 10:22 (NIV) - "All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm in the end will be saved."
It's nice to be liked and loved, but there is a price for proclaiming your belief in the Savior. Jesus already knew this would happen. I certainly don't believe all atheists hate Christians, but I do believe that it wasn't meant to be easy to have faith. Each of our faiths is a target for many who wish to bring it down.
Unfortunately use of that verse does lead many to believe that if they are being 'persecuted' they are 'on the correct side of the truth', whereas this 'persecution' may be nothing more than someone not agreeing with what is being stated.
Sometimes, yes. Other times, no. There is blatant persecution of Christians here and everywhere in the world. There are people seeking truth and debate, but there are many, many others that simply despise Christ and everything He stands for. This is no surprise to anyone that has read the Bible.
I'm not sure that I've heard of Christians being executed or imprisoned in the West. Do people where you live really hate Christ and what He stands for? Many will not believe, or even antagonise those that do believe, but that isn't hate.
I must admit that I have been fanatical in my beliefs from time to time. But aren't all relligious sects not prone to persecution from time to time? My problem is that I react instead of acting and I tend to say what I think, rather than what I feel.
Are we all not the same in this sense?
What A punk! glad you know everthing! God knows I don't. I'm simply a human who possesses the capacity for good as well as for evil. What are you Mr. perfect?
I think the most common traits I have seen are willful ignorance, and an inability to stop fearing this nonsensical, imaginary God.
OK. I dislike religion as much or more than anyone. I can also be really nasty when one of the godsoaked starts babbling.
Some of the really nicest and most wonderful people I have known have been deeply religious.. yes, I think they are foolish, irrational and worse, but dammit they are wonderful people and I am glad to have known them.
Religion can do horrible evil. I don't for a minute buy that it is NECESSARY in any way - I think those folks would have been ultra nice even if they had not a religious thought in their head. But I'm not going to broadly tar all religious people as unworthy just because they have some silly ideas in their head.
As Ashton said, willful ignorance can exist without religion - and it does. If being religious always meant a person would become as warm and kind as the people I'm thinking of, I'd heartily recommend that everybody "get religion". It doesn't, sadly. It talks the talk, but rarely walks the walk.
So, yeah: I'm a militant atheist. There's a lot I don't like about religion. But I like some religious people just fine, thank you.
"It talks the talk, but rarely walks the walk..." I agree.
lol "godsoaked"?? that made me smile...
Godsoaked is mine: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … id=2579648
It goes way back to alt.atheism long before Microsoft ruined email and Google ruined Usenet..
OK you can give it out, but can you take it?
Traits of anti-religious fanatics
* Obsessed with religion - babble on endlessly about it on internet
* self-righteous - convinced of own rightness
* amazingly insightful and intelligent - arrive at answers to cosmic questions all on their own, in opposition to billions of stupid religious fools
* stubborn, intractable
* have no faith in religion, yet often believe whole-heartedly in ideas that take overwhelming amount of faith, such as big bang, evolution, the-universe-could-have-created-itself-out-of-nothing (Steven Hawking)
* hypocrites - accuse religion of being totally horrible, but when have you seen an atheist hospital?
* hypocrites II - demand others be open minded but are most closed minded people on earth
* incurable pessimists and negative thinkers. There only answer is "No there isn't."
* ungrateful - happily consume God's air, water, tuna sandwiches etc. Then not only don't say thanks but deny his existence
* did I say intelligent? You know that was sarcastic. Must be mentally challenged, as able to look at complex structures like cells, ecosystems, galaxies and conclude these are the result of time and chance (sort of like all the merchandise in Wal-mart is the result of time and chance)
* "Thinking themselves wise, they became fools."
I think obsessed with humankind's discourse would be better. Thinking that one is as special as to be born into the right religion is "self-righteous. Anti- religious "fanatics" search for answers of the cosmos, instead of chalking it up to god. Anti-religious "fanatics" have faith, faith in that science can explain the unknowns of the universe. “Atheist hospitals”, no but we don't see Atheist pedophiles on the news every other day. How can an atheist be closed minded? They usually know more about religion than religious people, "Obsessed with religion" right? God's air? You are contradicting yourself since you can't possible know that god exist, making it his air. This would be "closed minded". Did you say "intelligent". The smartest countries in the world are Secular. I’m also a science major .
"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and
scriptural ignorance—The texts themselves are
unequivocal: they are perfect in all their parts. By their light, religious
moderation appears to be nothing more than an unwillingness
to fully submit to God's law. By failing to live by the letter of the
texts, while tolerating the irrationality of those who do, religious
moderates betray faith and reason equally. Unless the core dogmas
of faith are called into question—i.e., that we know there is a God,
and that we know what he wants from us—religious moderation
will do nothing to lead us out of the wilderness." -Sam Harris
One of the saddest posts I've seen in 2 years here.
But, as you can see, it's also very funny.
If believers did not force their beliefs on everyone, there would be no need to "babble" about it. Keep your beliefs behind closed doors where they belong and out of the public. No problem, then.
Of course, you're commanded to evangelize your religion, so how is it possible for anyone not to "babble"?
You mean, we know reality is right and your beliefs have nothing to do with reality.
Science arrives at answers that show the opposition, we don't.
Entirely false, science has nothing to do with faith, it deals strictly with the evidence of the physical world.
That is actually way too funny to be taken seriously and is evidence for hypocrisy.
In other words, we don't share your irrational fantasies so we are closed minded. Yeah, that makes sense.
Entirely false, and you know it.
A complete denial of reality and an insult to the starving who die every day.
That would show a complete lack of intelligence and understanding of the world around you.
And, as usual, an insult to top it all off.
Oh sorry, I left off
* overwhelmed with hubris - see asterisk #3 in previous post
There's quite a few hospitals in Connecticut that are atheist, including Yale.
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it” Adams.
People please, quit bashing each other. None of all of these traits listed apply to all religious people; just as not all traits listed about non-religious people apply to all non-religious people. We're all perfectly aware of the faults of each other. Let's see each other as individuals and stop generalizing What good is this discussion doing anyone except to cause strife?
And I am NOT a nice person at all. I really have no respect for religion, but broad generalizations just don't fly. Religious people can be very nice,can mind their own business and can be fun, smart, whatever.
In other words, they can be just like atheists :-)
I never said all religious people. I said FANATICS.
Precisely. The important thing is to know where our own faults, not how good we think we are at pointing them out in others.
Without the generalizations, then everything boils down to individuals and if you personally attack people in the forums, which is on an individual level, then you or the person will be banned.
Therefore, words must be used, like almost all or most or things like that, so as to not attack any particular individual and then get banned.
I don’t disagree with debating. I just disagree with the sentiment of bashing and attacking, altogether, individually or generally. why not just stop attacking?It’s impossible to deal with people on an individual basis here…so in that situation—isn't it better to just refrain?. A public forum with random people who we [probably] don’t know, typing out words without the help of either facial expression or verbal expression to make ourselves clear just seems like a lousy place to try to prove or attack anything or any My whole point is: nothing good is coming out of any of this, as far as I can tell. I just hate seeing people doing this to each other.
Debating religion is like talking to someone who has their head buried in sand. They cannot hear you.
It's all subjective.
It's subjective. Example: I could call someone ignorant, but it's not an attack for the pure and simple fact that ALL humans are ignorant in some capacity or another. However, it's deemed as an attack on HP forums and many individuals feel threatened or demean when told they are ignorant. But, it's truth whether or not, they agree or disagree. Everyone is ignorant.
If you refrain from speaking in the forums and everyone else followed suit, then what good would the forums be in the first place?
Untrue, on level sub-conscious level an impact is made regardless of whether or not, they recognize it.
I'm sure you do, but it's the nature of the topic.
As far as it being subjective, I get your point. I guess I was referring mostly to blatant “you’re a stupid brainwashed idiot” type offenses; where people aren’t debating; they’re just telling each other how stupid they are. This, to me, is the type of debate I was talking about which isn’t doing any good. That’s why I said, I like debate. Debate is good. But not when it all eventually boils down to people criticizing and hating back and forth. My encouragement was not necessarily to refrain from debate in the forums, but to stop attacking and berating everyone individually. But, as you mentioned in your post, it’s impossible to treat each other as individuals here…so that led to my conclusions that it might be best to avoid this topic in the medium of a forum…just an opinion. I could be wrong.
I enjoy a good debate with anyone, as long as it is done respectfully. I have no doubt that an impact is made, in a sub-conscious level. But I’m not sure it’s always a positive impact when the majority of debate ends up being bashing. The nature of the topic IS going to get people in heated discussion; I’m fine with that. I’m just saying the forums are a lousy place to do it and if we do it, it should be with more respect….I understand where you’re coming from, though.
What an I doing awake? at 2:30 AM!
The biggest thing wrong with with religion is that ; by definition, anyone that states that "I believe in GOD" can build a church regardless of their message.
And anyone that goes to that church can say that they are servants of God.
Just because it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, doesn't mean that it is a duck.
@janesix, beautiful point. I think you're talking about "ego."
As a Christian attempting to reason with another Christian, I found exegetical proof being called "blaspheming." Oh, well!
But except for the Bible quoting, you could apply the same to many secularists who are also "reasonable-soaked" egotists.
I love it when I have an intelligent discussion with some who isn't closed to a broad analytical look at things.
I have found few Christians or secularists who can do this on the things I've discovered. To them I'm just a strange malcontent. So be it!
I'm having too much fun with it to care about their egos. But I really do care about them.
Here's a problem, though.
Two Christians can disagree and still feel they are having an intelligent conversation.
You cannot have an "intelligent" conversation with me about religion, because I can't accept that any rational thought process could ever end up with any religious conclusion.
You might be a very nice person. i might admire you for your deeds, I might enjoy your company, but I will never see you as rational. If we discuss your beliefs, your inability to follow a rational train of thought will always be a part of our discussion. That's unavoidable, and most of the time it is going to cause anger in both of us.
Though I will say this: it's agnostics who REALLY tick me off. I can excuse you on grounds that your emotions overwhelm your common sense. Agnostics have no such excuse.
Execution and imprisonment aren't the only way to 'cause one to suffer because of their beliefs'.
No, but here in the West, atheists have to put up with much more than Christians do.
I'm not looking for trouble. As I have said many times, I will stand and defend the right to believe any fool thing you want.
But atheists have to suffer far more than any Christian ever does - in THIS country. Other places, who knows - both may suffer equally.
One quick example: Every single Presidential candidate is a deeply religious person. They all constantly talk about turning to prayer in times of trouble.
Do you have any idea how frightening that is? In times of serious danger, I don't want some fool rushing off to get down on his knees! I want intelligent, decisive action. But I have to instead hope that they won't waste too much precious time praying before they start doing!
How do atheists suffer in (assumption here) America?
In the UK nobody suffers persecution, no matter what faith or no faith. Except perhaps some Islamic communities who have suffered abuse since 9/11
You don't have to be persecuted to suffer.
Our ridiculous motto "In God We Trust" is exclusionary. It is almost impossible to be elected to any important political office as an atheist. Small things, perhaps, but they are real.
Having read your earlier post, it's not the idea that a leader goes to pray that would unerve me (that's his freedom to practice religion) it's when he comes back to decide policy based on what he thought God was telling him that's the worry.
What's really messed up is that people think "in god we trust" and "one nation under god" were like that since 1776 and not from the 1950's.
Actually, the motto was first added to our coinage in 1864 on the newly designed Two Cent coin (I have a hub about that coin if you would like to know more about it).
Our founders cared about "Liberty" and "E Pluribus Unum" - that's what THEY put on our money.
But they had intelligence..
I'm sorry the term under god was from the fifties. I meant to put two times on there.
Yes, "Under God" was added in the Fifties. I was in elementary school and refused to say it.
I think it rather quaint that your school children have to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag and nation at all. Where does all this patriotic sentimental emotionalism come from anyway?
The usual sources: The unintelligent and the crazies.
I would compare it to your tradition of saying 'God save the queen'
The only people who sing that are athletes and sportsmen before kick off.
It comes from living in a place that stands as an example of diversity and renewal to the rest of the 'older' world. It comes from living in a country that has flung wide its doors and coffers to give formerly restricted people a place where they can worship freely and live in peace. And it comes from living in a country that has proven time and time again its willingness to defeat tyranny, wherever it rears its ugly head.
I wouldn't say that all religion is irrational (of course, if you are irrational, are you likely to be aware of it). I would say that anyone who gets all their answers to all life's question from the same source (read bible) is likely to be slightly skewed and one dimensional.
The fact is that no one religious text answers all questions and if it does, then the reader is doing some pretty serious twisting of verses to get those answers. (Take my recent video game thread... Seriously? Jesus never said a damn thing about Skyrim)
On the other hand, saying that there is nothing of value in the Bible (or any other religious text) is equally skewed. The fact is, any given religion's value system is likely not so terribly different than those of another religion (atheists for that matter. It's the small percentage of differences that are fought about and overblown. In short, by virtue of being human we have more similarities in morality than differences, regardless of religion.
As far as the rational/irrational thing. I don't happen to believe that my belief system is all that irrational. However, even if it was... So what? Human beings are not supposed to be 100 percent rational. That's a whole different kind of psychological disorder. We have all kinds of completely irrational emotions, instincts and urges that make us people instead of automatons.
Some of the most irrational decisions in my life have made me the happiest
Being 100 percent rational does not make one an automaton nor is it some kind of psychological disorder, it just makes us rational people who don't accept nonsense and fairy tales as reality.
That's patently ridiculous. Deficit in emotion is a symptom in at least 10 psychological disorders that I can think of right from the top of my head. Including anti-social personality disorder, sociopaths, and psychopaths.
There is no psychological disorder known that addresses 100 percent rationality, because the condition is impossible in human beings.
As I assume that you are a human being, you aren't 100 percent rational... as much as you would like to think you are.
I have to agree there also. I am too rational to accept religion - it honestly seems very foolish to me - but I am not completely rational myself.
Irrational doesn't mean useless. Religion is harmless to many, comforting to some, and dangerous in the hands of a very few.
Who said anything about deficit in emotion? Where does that come from?
Impossible? And, what kind of non-physical supernatural things do I believe exist?
TM, I think you are being deliberately obtuse.
I really don't want to get into the Spock Straw man argument here, but emotional thinking when taken by itself is completely and utterly devoid of rationality. In many cases it is the diametric opposite of rational thinking. To claim that you are 100 percent rational is essentially claiming that you have no emotional thinking whatsoever. The worst psychopaths in the world still have some degree. Without it you would be a monster.
Now, with that in mind I think it's kinda silly to single out a belief system that is based on emotional (irrational) thinking. In short, everyone is going to be irrational about something... laying a value system on what areas of the life that is seems a bit... self-righteous.
You may not believe in sky fairies... So what? That just means your irrationality lies elsewhere.
Come now, Melissa, I'm just not agreeing with you on this.
Now, I'm really intrigued. We can't be 100 percent rational because our emotions are 100 percent irrational? Our emotions cannot be rational?
I really find that very hard to believe. In fact, according to neurological studies, the opposite may be true. Check this out...
"In a more pervasive and less easily definable way, the capacity to experience emotion seems to be indispensable to the conduct of a rational life over time. Antonio Damasio (1994) has amassed an impressive body of neurological evidence suggesting that emotions do, indeed, have this sort of function in everyday reasoning. Subjects in his studies who, because of injuries sustained to the prefrontal and somatosensory cortices of the brain, had a diminished capacity to experience emotion, were severely hindered in their ability to make intelligent practical decisions. In these ways, then, emotions would be all important to rationality even if they could not themselves be deemed rational or irrational."
I've tried to think of some other areas, but I can't come up with anything.
I would not disagree, and especially the last sentence.
But my statement still stands. Religious belief is emotional, not rational.
Oh, I absolutely agree that religion is emotional.
I could go in on a long list of very rational uses of religion and the pros and cons of organized religion... (in another thread). But personal religious beliefs are indeed mostly emotional.
Another off topic debate would be the definition of rational vs. irrational as objective or subjective... and the difference between rational decisions and decisions based on empirical evidence.
I love those kind of debates so much, though, that I would likely need a smoke afterwards and would certainly feel guilty about not sending you flowers the next day.
Rationalist arguments don't hold sway in either supporting or dispelling undisprovable belief. The only times I've seen it used by religious people are when they want to try to convert nonbelievers and think it would be an angle that works with them (it never does).
The older I get, though, the more trustworthy my "gut" feel becomes. But my personal feelings can't be used to effectively persuade someone else, and they shouldn't be; they just guide my own behavior.
Good point on rational vs empirical arguments, too.
The funny thing about gut feelings is that very often they are exactly the right reaction. That's especially true when you think someone is lying to you. If your gut says they are, they usually are. Not always, but I'd bet it beats lie detectors :-)
Umm. am not I the one supposed to send flowers?
It's been a long time, so maybe I'm remembering it badly.
It depends on which one of us wins
(That was the only PG-13 answer I could give)
Hmm. It HAS been a while. I didn't know that it was a competition, either..
Not so much of a competition as a challenge...
And the winner is obviously the one who comes out on top.
Actually not all of us are like that, you obviously have a deep bitterness towards someone who you have questioned. True Christianity is about loving others regardless. Instead of hatefully making statements maybe you should look into it more deeply. You cannot base your opinion of all Christians on your experience with a few. Just like we cannot say that all men are jerks or all priests are pedophiles.
Again, I only mentioned fanatics. What part of that don't you get?
IIt should tell you something when the term "fanatics" is interpreted as "all Christians."
Not our fault... the fanatics exclude us non-fanatical Christians by their choice. I, for example, am not a Christian to 50 percent of other Christians. Fundies choose to define Christianity by using themselves as the ruler. That ruler too often measures zealousness.
The fundies made their padded room, they can bounce off the walls of it.
In short, God may have made man in his own image, but Fundies have made Christianity in their image. I'm kinda upset about it myself, but I haven't found a fundie funeral to picket yet.
"Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible
for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide
the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence
can never be adequately opposed." -Sam Harris
I'll apologize to Mr. Harris if I ever meet him. It must be horribly frustrating to not be able to use all his preconceived notions against someone who doesn't actually fit them.
I shall try to be more fanatical to make it easier for someone to tell me I'm wrong. "Disagree with me so I can argue with you" is such a great debate strategy.
Edit: BTW, I'm not a religious moderate, I am a religious liberal. I'll give you time to wrap your mind around that.
"not our fault"..... What is the difference between moderate and liberal? Are you liberal because you can't fully submit to god's law? If you believed in Christianity, why wouldn't you run with it all the way? Do you cherry pick it, so that it is compatible to you regardless of what the actual word of god says? "Mr. Harris" didn't send you the quote, why would you apologize to him?
I can tell you that you're wrong regardless of your "fanatical" level. Anyone who goes beyond the idea of god, and says, he or she knows which god it is, in example, Jesus Christ, is a fanatic to me.
Aww! You are so cute in YOUR fanaticism. You must be new to the forums. In answer to your questions... I cherry pick the HELL out of the bible. I don't believe there is such a thing as "God's Law". I believe in Christianity and I have run all the way with it... Maybe you need to work on your definitions of Christianity. Quoting Sam Harris at me doesn't really upset me because I agree with a lot of his stuff... although he is a bit unimaginative and stereotyping in his views and is just a little bit arrogant. I wouldn't, of course, apologize to him... although since he takes religion as a personal insult I'm sure mine would personally offend him.
You have no idea whether I'm wrong or not, because you have no idea what my beliefs are. Maybe you could try asking me and I'll let you know. THEN you can say I'm wrong. I don't really go beyond the idea of God, because I am undecided on whether there is one or not. I don't know which God(s)-if any-are the right ones because I've never met he/she/it/they/non-existant. I don't believe Jesus was a God regardless...
Now... here is your turn to say "You aren't a Christian then" because, as we all know, that is for everyone else in the world to define.
Your are a Christian, correct? So you are undecided about a Deity, but you claim the religion. That's like me claiming the CRIPS and not being sure if I agree with gang banging. Do you believe Jesus was the son of God?
I'm not going to tell you anything, but I will give you my opinion with the information that is allotted to me. I think you are a Christian. (if it says it's a duck, it's a duck.) I mean they have a million different sects. I don't see one sect making up the entire religion, but I do believe every sect under the fundies do pave way for their ignorance.
I'm a Unitarian.
I don't believe that Christ was the literal son of God. I think that he was a prophet and a fairly good role model. I think that most of the parables attributed to him in the Bible are part of a solid foundation to becoming a good person.
That being said, most religions have prophets or wisemen that teach equally good lessons. I also believe it is possible to have a solid moral code without any belief in religion at all. For myself, however, Christ made sense, as his strengths were in areas that I had weaknesses in. His teachings gave me something to aspire to.
LOL, I know right! A service with members of all faiths and none coming together every Sunday to actually have reasonable discussions about our differences. A religion where the only intolerance is for intolerance and the only thing we are passing judgement on is the model of Birkenstocks the other person is wearing... ah bliss...
Sorry... Religious pride got the best of me...
I want to take my son to the U.U church in my city but my wife really wants him to go to church at his catholic school until his confermation so when he is older ill see if he wants to go with me.
I don't take my kids with me to services... the little one goes and stays in the nursery, the older ones have chosen different paths. Although both of those paths would be welcome in the UU environment, they choose to be elsewhere (I think to get away from us) Believe it or not, my Hubby is a fundie and he fits in relatively O.K. (although he is often the other side to our debates)
Religious liberal.....is that another way of saying heathen?
I think what he means is that moderates cut slack for the extremists, effectiving validating their existence.
It is hard for moderates to admit the insanity of the extremists because to admit that casts the same aspersions on their own beliefs.
Okay, I can see that.
The only point I'd make is that moderate means well moderate. I am sure there are quite a few moderates that come down hard on fundies too. I've noticed that the trend towards exclusion by the most fanatical extends outside these forums... and it tends to piss off most Christians to be told they aren't one. (Doesn't really bother me all that much, but you know)
In addition, the acts and beliefs of the extremists are becoming so virulent that I think moderates are increasingly likely to come down harder on the group. After all, it is becoming a choice between being associated with the loonies or giving up your religion. I predict that within the next 20 or so years that there will more and more self-policing among the Christians. I see the group, as a whole, moving more towards center and fundamentalists being relegated to "cult" status.
Extremists will never listen to people outside their belief system; your thoughts and rationales are absolutely meaningless to them.
Moderates can "speak the same language" and understand enough of our own religion to tell extremists they're corrupting the values of it. And since we're members of the religion, we can't be accused of trying to destroy the religion.
The fact that moderates speaking out against extremism is not nearly effective enough for nonbelievers' satisfaction does not mean it's not the most effective counter to extremism.
Oh, I think it definitely IS the most effective. I just don't see enough of it.
We have a religious nut as a neighbor. Everybody ignores him, but only one neighbor will actually admit that this guy is crazy - maybe it's because he lives right next door, but I think it's more than that. I think moderates are afraid of a "slippery slope" and I'm not sure I can blame them for that.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.
That causing too much problem for extremists could lead to more restraints on religion in general.
After all, Catholics are "extremists" to some Protestants and vice-versa. Some (very stupid) people see all Muslims as extremists. And so on, unfortunately.
Well, I guess it depends on whether you see reining in extremists as something against extremism in general, or religion in general.
As a person who's against angry evangelism, of either the religious or atheist variety, I'd rather rein in the former. But then again, I'm a moderate raised by moderate parents.
Extremist religion or atheism seem to be two sides of the same coin - the latter tends to be born as a reaction to an extremist religious upbringing. Moderates of all flavors tend to raise moderate children.
Well, I consider myself an "extreme" atheist, but you might see me as something more moderate because I don't evangelize. I feel strongly that religion is silly, but I don't mind that you have it and I don't care to try to talk you out of it. It might be very good for you - why would I want to change that?
I would not classify you as an extremist, then. You can think whatever you like, but as long as you leave me alone, then you're OK in my book.
Besides, beliefs are complex enough that it's dangerous to put people in a box. I spend far more time saying things along the line of "I/we don't believe that." I suspect, as an atheist, you do, too.
Well, I think that's interesting; however, I would also class it as a personal opinion that is hard to document.
I do understand that everything is personal opinion. However, I refuse to use a broad brush in fanatics. Somewhere along the line, it appeared tp me that many were classing all Christians as fanatics. Otherwise janesix would not need to remind people that the terms were limited.
In response to that, I will say that a ridiculous amount of Christians on these forums have told me at one point or another that I was not a Christian. Since they have, largely, defined themselves it is only fitting that they be held to their own definition.
I, as a Christian, did not get offended by the title at all. It may be worth examining why you did.
I am not offended by the title. I am wondering why the term "fanatic" had to be used to clarify the topic. Janesix has posted at least twice that the thread is limited to "fanatics." Why did she need to do that? Well someone misinterpreted her premise.
I assume that the OP wanted to differentiate between raving zealots and the functional Christians. It's a complement really. It means that she doesn't believe that all Christians are fanatical and is addressing only those who are.
That assumes that she knows many of them. Otherwise she would not judge the traits of one or two zealots for a discussion, would she? Perhaps if she named those particular ones, we would have a better idea of her reasoning rather than the idea of her emotional disgust.
No, actually it doesn't.
Try it this way, what if someone posted a thread about wanting to talk about blond haired people. Why on earth would a brunette be offended?
The O.P. wanted to talk about religious fanatics in general... are you saying that religious fanatics don't exist? Or are you offended because you consider yourself a religious fanatic?
If you are trying to defend Christians in general, there is no need. The OP doesn't seem to be attacking ALL Christians... Just the fanatics. Now, if you consider yourself a fanatic, there is also no need to defend ALL Christians... just yourself.
As usual you have jumped to a couple of conclusions that are way off the logical spectrum. We are not tole what the O.P. intended. We do not know how many she referenced. Is it a majority of Christians? Is it a large minority?
But the point is clearly aimed at a religious segment. Hey, it could be aimed at many other groups. But only religious fanatics are included. I would like to know specifically which religious people she lanels as fanatics. Is that asking too much? Dont think so.
*sighs* It doesn't matter whether it's the majority or the minority... The OP is ONLY addressing the fanatics. By saying religious FANATICS, he names the specific group, once again it does not matter what percentage of the people are such. It doesn't matter if its a large minority or not. That is off topic. The OP has not addressed it. Geez, what are you not understanding?
I didn't jump to a conclusion, I actually read the post, and only the post, without reading anything else into it or taking it as a personal attack. Try it sometimes. It's great to not imagine arguments instead of actually debating the friggen subject.
It CANNOT be aimed at any other other groups, as it specifically says FANATICS. That is a limited statement. Logical people assume that limiting statements... well limit.
Now your point about what exactly is labeled as a religious fanatic is the ONLY valid point you've made so far. Why not ask THAT question before you go off on tangents?
My classification of a religious fanatic would include becoming irrationally disgrutled by a realistic statement that fanatics exist within the religion and righteous indignation at the possibility that your religion is anything but perfect.
are you saying that religious fanatics don't exist?
Looks as though you are asking an absurd question. Ther4efore, you have jumped to a ridiculous conclusion if you are serious.
Or are you offended because you consider yourself a religious fanatic?
So how many fanatics do you know that are aware they are fanatics. How many would admit it? So once again you jump to a ridiculous conclusion.
If you are trying to defend Christians in general, there is no need. The OP doesn't seem to be attacking ALL Christians... Just the fanatics. Now, if you consider yourself a fanatic, there is also no need to defend ALL Christians... just yourself.
Time to read a few of the posts in this thread. You might be inclined to change your mind.
Okay, I'm going to go talk to my wall now.
You'd get more accomplished.
My favorite part is how he(and all fundi) dismiss questions they don't like as nonsensical. This is the biggest trait of fanatics.
Closing dialogues they don't like or can't answer.
Hey, I'm not the one who says the questions are nonsensical. And I began long ago trying to get the definition of a religious fanatic. But you have not defined one at all. You are the one who does not answer questions. You avoid the issues and run when it's obvious that you cannot answer the questions. Look at the posts.
Nobody generalized all Christians if you reread who asked for clarification it was a Christian every time .
They didn't have to generalize all Christians. I recall how saying "Merry Christmas" turned into an attack on Christians. Free Speech and religious freedom are abridged by good manners. ROTFLMAO
Really? I didn't feel at all attacked by that thread. *Shrugs* Go figure.
I didn't feel attacked either, but I know people who were attacked. They are those who believe Christmas is a religious holiday that has been celebrated in this country for centuries(two makes a plural), and it is their right to say "Merry Christmas." Hey, look at the stores who don't want to offend, so thay say "Merry Xmas" or "Happy Holidays." So regardless how you fee, some are being attacked due to their wishing others "Merry Chriwstmas."
There are those who know Christmas is not a religious holiday, at least, not a religious holiday based on Christianity.
Sure, it may be their right to say "Merry Christmas" but it is also peoples right to not wish to hear someone saying "Merry Christmas"
That's how it works, Don.
That's how it works in the mind of people who have not studied the history of Christmas. And you are one who has neglected to do the research.
Because Jesus was born on December 25 right?
Please don't tell me you really think this.
So where did you get the idea that I thought Jesus was born on December 25. Do you really believe that just because we celenbrate his birth on 12/25 that we must also believe he was born on 12/25. Have you studied the history of Christmas? Obviously not.
Do you really not know what sarcasm is?
I was answering your question about the birth of Jesus. It's perfectly reasonable to ignore "saecasm" when answering your posts. You are not inclined to conduct reasonable discussions in searching for the truth. You are more inclined to talk down to those with whom you disagree. Therefore,"sarcasm" in your post was totlly ignored.
Why is every fundamentalist an amtateur anthropologist,linguist,archeologist gone very, very wrong?
Your post proves my point. Your assumption is that I am a fundamentalist who is too ignorant to carry on discussions with you.
Other that "fundamentalist" section of that (because I honestly cannot make enough sense of your posts to figure it out) I agree completely with that assessment.
What is the History behind Christmas? What about the term Xmas? I am interested in what you have discovered. If you would please.
I would tell you, but I am working on a hub toi address that very subject.
A little advice for those here who are soo offended by believers, get out! Get up and leave , walk away , but please stop justifying you hollowness by dumping on spirituality . In other words "grow up"!
Yea, you probably just opened a can of worms.
Maybe you need a lesson in humility? Hmmm....
The self-righteous telling other people to grow up when they themselves cannot see the error of their own ways? Ironic.
LOL! How does an adult who talks to invisible friends honestly tell another adult who doesn't to "grow up"?
It is primarily evangelizing that offends everyone, will Christians stop evangelizing, then?
How interesting that you can speak for "everyone." Where did you get that authority? Or is it your arrogance that makes you assume that everyone believes as you do?
Gee Don, you really got me on that one. I suppose I'll have to retract the word "everyone" in light of Don's critical thinking skills and excellent detective work.
How about this?
Many people are offended by Christian evangelizing, even some Christians themselves are offended.
I am wondering why we would categorize anyone with those certain "traits." I think anyone could have those traits. Religion or not...Personal Choice.
Should be obvious why religion is attacked. It is due to the desire of those who hate competition. The free exchange of ideas leaves them in a lurch. that's why they attack rather than debate.
Yes, centuries of wars, hatred, oppression, division, evangelizing and host of other atrocities might have something to do with it.
Ah, sounds like someone who is saying that if the Christians would go away, we would have world peace and prosperity. Who was it that said we were limit this thread to religious fanatics.
All religions have a place, that in the form of guidance. Though I still think we should take those examples and stop worshiping the past.
I say all religous fanatics are ignorant because they ignore any and all proof to the contrary of what their scripture says.
If you think the world is anything less then millions of years old because of a holy book than you ate probably a fanatic.
I'll take my Newtons, Archimedes, Galileos, over
Pat Robertson, billy graham or any other snake oil salesmen on tv in the morning.
Very realistic way to look at things. Why not just follow the teachings and let the teacher rest?
Well, that's what you get for believing the snake oil salesmen and not reading the holy book. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. did you notice the period? So when was the beginning? The holy book doesn't say. But if you read some of the other scriptures, you would learn that the earth is millions of yr=ears old.
So my question is, what can you teach anyone if you don't know what the holy book says? Do your own research and quit badmouthing people people who know more than you do.
Christians don't have to go anywhere, they just need a little education in their lives.
The ideology is the problem, not the people who follow it.
I never said they had to go anywhere. Time is in the present and time knows no place. The point of what I said is simple. Live now and let the teachings of the past guide us. To the same point. Why worry about an uncertain future? Why not feel the truth, instead of hearing it?
Here's an excocise: Try to feel your brain, or your mind. It's actually quite difficult. People are aroused by feeling, but they only feel with their ears, eyes and fingers. Try feeling it deeper and you'll find it's all an illusion.
This illusion I speak of, is the dellusion that we were ever in control to begin with.
Good. Maybe I was misguided, but then again, I wasn't attacking. I was merely enlightening myself through words while reading a question. Maybe I wanted to answer the question for myself.
You might help that troubled man. he has been asked a question. He will answer it because he is not a religious fanatic. He =will answer with documentation and not call it nonsense. So help that troubled man with answering hard questions.
The "teachings of the past" are based on medieval myths and superstitions, barbaric and ignorant of the world around us. If we don't worry about those "teachings" guiding us, they will lead us all to destruction.
And what is wrong with the ideology? Be specific. If you are capable of teaching anyone anything you now have the chance to prove it. And don't say the question is nonsenical like your LookingforWalden. And don't refuse to answer the question as you accuse Christians of doing. If don't answer the question, wiopethe egg of your face.
If I answer anyone's question, they'll never figure it out for themselve's. The only thing I can do is advise. It was a philosopher's duty to impart knowledge, not trap their listeners to any one concept.
The idea is this; If you are right, then you never have to argue the point. Does that suffice as an answer?
The question is addressed to Troubled man and Lookingfor Walden. Their attitudes are that religious fanatics will not answer direct questions and religious fanatics claim that questions are nonsensical. Troubled man has said that the thing wrong with Christianity is its ideology. I berlieve he should answer that question.
I contend that he has not figured it out for himself. He knows nothing about it or he would not have placed himself in the trap he is in.
Some people feel the way they do. If they choose to think one way then that is their path. there is no one path to follow and their answers may be found elsewhere.
I think it is also easy to ring conversations in circles, it is a subconcious way of protecting their beliefs.
But if I say that the ideology of a particulat religion is good or bad, I should be able to list the points that have led me to that conclusion.
People do sometimes get lost in rings of circles when they are not certain why they dislike something. If they are forced to list the reasons objectively, they may discover that they had a bad experience and have been building mountains of lies.
On the other hand, they may be ready to give a list that supports their conclusion. In such a case, they may not make sense to you but it does to them. Therefore, with discussion you may be able to reach the truth.
Their path may be changed with the light of truth.
Again to be very clear I never said Christian ideology is good or bad.
I do say that a fundamentalist approach to the bible, like in place of science and logic, is very very very very wrong.
All of this means nothing. I speak words, but they are just noises. It just so happens that you can understand the noise. This does not mean you should attack or be defensive. I might enjoy the noise my mouth makes. This is a good example of what most people feel when they speak.
I don't share the same beliefs about Christianity as troubled man.
I don't have a problem with a person living their lives by the moral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.
In fact, I raise my son with those same values and morals.
I do NOT teach him everything in the bible is accurate nor would I ever allow such a thing to happen in his school.
What boggles my mind is, speaking only from experience, how born again evangelicals are so far removed from being Jesus like.
If you go through your life acting like Jesus, Iike helping the poor, your neighbors, not discriminating, valuing all life, respecting people
Sacrifice for others, turning the other cheek, not judging people, etc
I will gladly say you have lived a great life on this earth and your time here will be missed, regardless of my beliefs.
In all honesty I feel bad disproving obvious things like the earth is millions of years old, evolution, validity on the bible, and things like that because I'm afraid that if believing that is what keeps a person of drugs or alcohol or whatever then I don't want to be responsible for shaking their faith.
Re read the posts, I said YOU dismiss questions you don't like as nonsensical, as shown in your posts with MB which she then said I'd rather talk to a wall than you.
It divides people with one side evangelizing their beliefs to the other telling them they'll burn for eternity if they don't join.
It causes good people to do and say bad things.
It causes conflict and wars such that we've seen throughout history
It causes people to be dishonest with themselves and everyone else.
I causes people to lie about the world we live in.
It teaches us we are evil and full of sin when it is actually the religion that is filling us with evil.
It causes people to stop thinking for themselves.
It causes people to live a life of obedience and worship rather than learning and understanding.
It causes people to detest reality and give up on it for an alleged eternal afterlife.
Shall I go on? Do you need more?
Christianity and free exchange of ideas? What happened during the Inquisition along with the rest of Christianity's history. People seem to live in a bubble thinking Christianity is great because it has made a transition in the last 50years. But we can't forget the other 1950 years. Don't forget history, or it will repeat itself? right?
Side note- Statistics show Christianity has been declining over the past 50 years. Maybe there's a correlation there?
Well, Im glad to know that you believe everyone is so rigid they cannot change. That means that you are to ridgid to have intelligent discussions, doesn't it? Notice how you have painted "ALL" Christians with your "BIG TRUTH BRUSH"
Tells methat I was right abhout your including All Christians as fanatics. Wonder when someone else will post proof positive that they are too rigid to seek the truth?
Shepherds tend their flocks in the spring during the birthing time. Jesus was born in the spring. I think it humorous that atheists also fit the description of religious zealots. Though they do attempt to portray their beliefs as rational, they accept "theories" as absolute fact. No better than the men of science from ancient times who insisted that the earth was flat. You realize that they accept someone else's conclusions without having the skills necessary to prove it definitively themselves. No different than a christian sitting in the pews, allowing their heads to be filled with a new dogma.
Fanatics are found not just in Christians but all other religions, in atheists, in sports, in politics. A true Christian is understanding and kind but stands up for what he believes in. If you have such a problem that probably makes you a fanatic as well janesix. You cannot group anyone into a group without knowing them first.
Fanatic Atheist, fanatic people in sports, and fanatic politicians don't kill people though. Fanatic religious people do. The fanatic politicians are all bible pushers with agendas.
Actually, yes they do, and of the worst mass murderers in recent history, all but one were fanatical atheist politicians. The remaining one, Hitler, exploited religion but really worshipped himself.
What mass murders are you referring to?
I am referring to Pol Pot, Ceucescu, Guevara, Castro, Mao, and Stalin.
Oh, I thought you were talking about Bush, Bush, Gaddafi, Hussein, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Bin Ladin, Mari Bim Amude Alkatiri... Shall I go on?
That doesn't change the fact that the one person with the most murders, disappearances, and false imprisonments to his name was not a religious fanatic, but an atheist political fanatic. It proves my point that political fanaticism, far from being harmless, is even worse than religious fanaticism.
But he wasn't doing it because of his non-religion, was he? That all came from political ideology, not religion or atheism.
On the other side, I'm not ready to damn religion for atrocities, because I suspect that in most cases, politics and power had much more to do with it. Religion is often more the excuse than the cause.
I agree with you there, but I was talking about the claim Cranforddjs made a page back that political fanatics don't kill people. Not only do political fanatics commit murder- and on an extremely large scale, but it seems that political fanaticism is the cause of nearly every violent conflict attributed to religion. (And neither Qaddafi nor Saddam Hussein would qualify in my book as religious fanatics, unless you count devotion to the unholy trinity of Me, Myself, and I as a religion.)
Having said that if you really, really want to have debates about fundamentalist christianty, I will oblige you.
I would keep in mind that you have everything to lose if your wrong while I play for nothing.
by Mahaveer Sanglikar3 years ago
Is atheism becoming another religion? I am asking this question because many atheists are loudly talking against 'other' religions, like many of the the propagandists of religions do.I myself am an atheist, and I think...
by arthriticknee7 years ago
There is no Atheist text.This ensures Atheists can't manipulate the ambiguous writings from 2,000 - 3,000 years ago to justify their actions.As far as I am aware, no one has committed mass murder in there name of there...
by David Zephaniah5 years ago
Did you ever ask yourself why are some atheists so nasty? It is not enough for them that they lack any faith (in human or God); but they also try to ridicule and demonize the faithful people, at every opportunity that...
by JonTutor7 years ago
Last night there was a debate.... this topic "would you marry atheist".... I said... I'm not atheist... I'm "individualist".... experienced for myself.... this Budhist technique.. ...
by mischeviousme5 years ago
To clarify, I am not an atheist, but I have seen some violence coming from religious folks that is to the extreme. Where an atheist will talk, a christian will pull a trigger. What makes one side any more innocent than...
by Claire Evans5 years ago
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.